§ Clause 11 (Disturnpiked roads to become main roads, and half the expense of maintenance to be contributed out of county rate).
§ MR. PAGET moved, in page 4, line 42, after "authority," to insert "or of such other person or persons as the county authority may appoint."
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH moved, in page 5, at end, to add—
Provided that no part of such expenses shall be included in—
He had considered the abstruse points which would be involved were this Bill passed in conflict with the policy of this Amendment, and he was satisfied that the Bill would not work in any other way so long as the jurisdiction remained in the county authority. As regarded the Metropolis, there were certain turnpike roads which had fallen in since 1870, both in the East and North of London. It would,
858
of course, be a reasonable thing that these roads should be cast upon the common fund of the Metropolis, or else become county roads; but it would be inconvenient that the county should have anything to do with them; and if anything were done it would be more analogous to the mode in which these things were generally arranged in the Metropolis, that they should be thrown upon the common fund of the Metropolis. But he did not propose to touch these roads at all. He was satisfied that was the only convenient mode of dealing with the subject at present. With regard to the quarter sessions boroughs, they were in a different position. It appeared, from a Return which he had had furnished to the House, that two-thirds of those boroughs made no contribution whatever under the existing state of things to the county rate, and there was no doubt that the magistrates were precluded by the Municipal Corporation Act from levying any new contribution. Of the remainder, seven or eight might be left out of consideration, because their contribution was a voluntary contribution for lunatic asylum purposes. The others, which contributed more or less to the county rate, paid what he took to be contributions which had been continued from times antecedent to the Corporation Acts. It would be quite contrary to the practice of Parliament to throw this new charge upon these independent bodies; and, in his judgment, it could not be done until these bodies were united with the county authority in some representative district. The Bill was, therefore, conceived with the view of excluding the area of the Metropolis and of the quarter sessions boroughs from its operation, and he hoped the Committee would be content to leave it so.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought the Amendment involved an exceedingly important question. If a Highway Bill were to be passed, it should be a complete measure. In the Scotch Bill, discussed at the previous Sitting, it was distinctly laid down that Glasgow was to pay for certain roads in the neighbouring counties. Glasgow and Scotch Members protested; but the provision was carried in spite of their protests. The right hon. Gentleman laughed; but the Committee were now dealing with a similar subject as it affected 859 England. There were 95 boroughs to be exempted; but, if they were exempted, why were all the other towns to be included? There were but four boroughs in Lancashire having quarter sessions of their own. Other large towns of Lancashire, with their hundreds of thousands of population, were to be charged; but these four fortunate towns would not be charged. Was this right? His right hon. Friend had proposed, in his first Bill, to give power to re-establish turnpike tolls, under certain conditions; but it was felt by all that that could not now be done. He would only now say that these towns who benefited more by the abolition of tolls than any other part of the country in which they were situated, had a right to pay something towards the maintenance of the roads. In his own county there were two towns—Chichester and Lewes—which were in precisely the same position. Chichester had a quarter sessions, and would be exempt from payment; Lewes had no quarter sessions, and would have to pay. Such anomalies would not bear examination. It was not right to deal with a difficulty by putting it on one side as was here proposed; and the difficulty here would, in his opinion, be met more easily than the Government supposed. He had looked into the facts with regard to county rates; and although it was true that for certain purposes these towns were free from county rates, there was nothing to prevent Parliament laying future burdens on the towns.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was glad to hear the remarks of the last speaker, for though the hon. and gallant Baronet and he approached the question from different points of view, their conclusions were the same. The proposed compromise was indefensible, and in the county with which he was connected would operate most unjustly. He was connected by residence with the borough of Warrington, and he represented another large borough. "Was it possible for the Committee to entertain for a moment a proposal, the effect of which would be to exclude Wigan from liability to contribute to the maintenance of main roads because it happened to have quarter sessions, and to impose a heavy charge upon Warrington and Burnley because they had not quarter sessions? He believed that at the present moment the 860 provisions of this Highways Bill were unknown in the country. He did not believe that the boroughs in different parts of the country which had not quarter sessions had the slightest idea that there was a Bill now before the House of Commons, the effect of which would be to impose upon them their proportion of one-half the cost of maintenance of the main roads of the Kingdom, which was an entirely new charge, and would be a very considerable tax upon borough property. The President of the Local Government Board had drawn a distinction between boroughs with quarter sessions and boroughs without; but as regarded the point they had now before them there was no distinction. The distinction that did exist was in reference to the administration of justice and the maintenance of gaols, the charges for which quarter sessions boroughs were relieved from, because they had their own administration of justice, and they used to have gaols of their own; but that had nothing to do with the maintenance of roads. They were now proposing to impose a new charge, and it should be dealt with in one of two ways—either they should exclude the large towns, or they should include them whether they had quarter sessions or not. He entirely objected to this piecemeal legislation. He should be quite prepared to support the right hon. Gentleman in excluding all boroughs. In Scotland, all towns of 5,000 inhabitants and upwards were excluded from the operation of the Highways Bill, so that any place which was, properly speaking, an urban as distinguished from a rural community, was exempt from contribution to the maintenance of high roads, and there was reason in the exemption. No doubt, boroughs made use of the county road; but then they had to make their streets at a very great cost, and to submit to heavy charges year by year for their maintenance. He did not say that it might not be legitimate, if some plan could be devised by which a proportional share of the maintenance of roads in counties should be placed upon the urban authorities; but it was intolerable and unjust that property which was of very great value in large towns should be called upon to contribute a very considerable share to the cost of the maintenance of these main roads. The set-off which the right hon. Gentleman proposed 861 to give to the towns was practically an illusion. He had the highest respect for the President of the Local Government Board, who, he believed, was most anxious to deal with the question in a fair and reasonable way; but he could not assent to the proposal by way of set-off, that in the case of certain roads which had been disturnpiked since 1871, if any part of them passed through a borough, the borough should have a claim upon the county for a certain amount towards the maintenance of these roads, because there were scarcely any of these roads within boroughs which had been disturnpiked since that time, and there would, therefore, practically, be no set-off; while the great amount of rateable property existing in large towns would form a very important item in the contributions to the county rate. What he would suggest was that the clause should be postponed, to enable the President of the Local Government Board seriously to consider how this matter could be dealt with. It could not, he was satisfied, be dealt with in the manner now proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had bought off the formidable opposition connected with the Metropolis and the quarter sessions boroughs, and he would now have to buy off the rest of the boroughs, or to bring forward a scheme that would place on a just and equitable basis the amount of the contributions from the different localities. He regretted that the Bill was drawn on such narrow limits. It was wasting the time of the House to deal with the question in this piecemeal fashion; and he, for one, should not regret if the Bill were withdrawn. If, however, they were to go on, he urged that the clause should be withdrawn and another clause brought up, which would meet the difficulties to which he had referred. If that course were not taken, he should propose to amend the Amendment; and if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in excluding boroughs with quarter sessions, and in including other boroughs, he should do everything in his power to oppose the Bill.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he had formed the opinion that all boroughs having quarter sessions were, to a certain extent, liable to county rate, notwithstanding what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth), 862 who had moved the Amendment. There were three Acts of Parliament all requiring a contribution from the boroughs, in proportion to the expenditure of the county, for certain purposes. No doubt, the county magistrates could not assess or levy a rate within these boroughs; but they could send in a requisition of the amount required for county purposes, other than those from which the boroughs were specially exempt, and they had the power of enforcing this requisition under these circumstances. The question was, how were they to deal with the Amendment? He should be very sorry to stop the progress of the Bill; but he considered that if the Committee were to adopt the Amendment, as it stood, they should stereotype the principle of giving up now and for ever the liability, whatever it might be, of these boroughs. He should be willing to come to an arrangement with these boroughs. He had no wish to do anything that would seem unjust to them; and, having regard to their position, it might be desirable that they should not be saddled to the full extent that the county rate at present would fall upon them. But he did feel the impossibility of assenting to the words proposed; and he would therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, that he should not at present press the Amendment. As far as the Metropolis was concerned, he had no objection to it.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHremarked that it would be quite impossible, in a Bill of this kind, to impose a new charge in connection with the county rate without express acknowledgment and machinery for putting it into operation. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had complained that certain towns in Lancashire would be heavily charged for the purposes of this contribution, mentioning his own town and Warrington; while, he said, Wigan and other places would escape. But they were told by the Lancashire Members that those towns were only too anxious to contribute to the county rate. The hon. Member for Oldham himself (Mr. Hibbert) proposed an Amendment to that effect in the County Boards Bill. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) apprehended that the practice of Lancashire was to contribute by arrangement towards the county rate. Then the hon. Member for 863 Burnley talked about the enormity of this charge. Now, what did this charge amount to? Only £150,000 upon the whole county rating of the Kingdom, or about one-third or one-fourth of the relief which had recently been afforded by the operation of the Prisons Act. As it stood, then, at the present moment, and until this machinery was extended and further developed, the charge was really not one worth talking about. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) seemed to suppose that it was a new fancy of his to exempt quarter sessions boroughs. It was nothing of the kind. When he came to frame this Bill, with a view of doing what had long been urgently demanded, he found no other rate upon which he could rest except the county rate, and that seemed to him a reasonable and a fair line to draw. Some of these quarter sessions boroughs would be glad to come into this arrangement, as they would receive in the way of contribution more than they would be called upon to pay. In the original draft of the County Government Bill, it was proposed to exempt even local board districts from the operation of this rating, but they one and all remonstrated against that solution; and he found that in Cheshire, Essex, Lancashire, and many other places, there was the greatest anxiety on the part of the local board districts to come in and have the benefit of this charge spreading over the whole of the county rate. Seeing, then, that it was not a large charge, seeing also that those towns were certainly contributory to the county rate, it did seem to him that this was a reasonable step to take, and that the addition which he proposed might be made to the clause without the slightest alarm or anxiety. The hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) said he would be satisfied if he thought the principle would not be stereotyped for ever. Surely the hon. Gentleman had sufficient experience of Acts of Parliament to see that this was an omnibus Bill, containing fragmentary Amendments, which would necessitate, at some later period, the introduction of a consolidation measure with a view to place the whole of the law on a uniform and satisfactory basis? The Highway Acts were a mass of confusion; and if he had attempted to consolidate them in connection with his Amendment, not 864 one Session only but two Sessions might be too short for that purpose. He considered that the Government, in introducing the measure, bound itself to bring in, at as early a period as possible, a Bill to consolidate all the existing Highway Acts, when the Amendments now introduced might be reviewed and re-considered.
§ MR. STANSFELDthought that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, instead of diminishing, had strengthened the objections to the Amendment. He had perceived nothing in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman which would justify the imposition of this charge upon boroughs which had not quarter sessions, if quarter sessions boroughs were to be exempted. The right hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to treat this matter as one of detail. That might be; but the reason why the Committee was in the difficulty in which it now found itself was that the Government had abandoned the County Government Bill, which would have determined, according to the mind of the country and that House, any questions upon which, at the present moment, they were unable to come to a conclusion. He would take this very question, on which he differed from many hon. Friends on his own side of the House. He said distinctly that he agreed with hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who argued that no boroughs ought to be excluded from their share of county expenditure; but he said, at the same time, that those boroughs ought not to be excluded from their share of county government; and that question would have come on for discussion if the County Government Bill had not been withdrawn. If the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted by the Committee, a claim would be created on behalf of boroughs which had no quarter sessions, many of them more populous than those which had, and he was at a loss to see how that claim could be resisted.
MR. CHAMBEELAINsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) generally took an exceedingly fair and impartial view of everything that was brought under his notice; and he was surprised, therefore, at his endeavour to impose a new charge upon quarter sessions boroughs on such slight grounds as he had alleged. He was quite prepared, nevertheless, 865 to submit his case on behalf of one of the greatest quarter sessions boroughs to the hon. and gallant Member, who would, he was quite sure, give it a fair consideration. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this was a question which ought to be settled at once. If there were any claim which could, in justice, be urged against quarter sessions boroughs, let them by all means recognize it in their legislation immediately, and not postpone its consideration until two or three years' hence. But what was the just balance as between counties and boroughs in this matter? He took it for granted that the obligation to be admitted was, at all events, a mutual and reciprocal one. If, on the one hand, boroughs were called upon to pay for the usor of county roads, counties should, on the other, be called upon to pay for the usor of the borough roads. He would take his own case as an illustration. The markets of Birmingham were very largely attended by country people, who came in with very heavy waggons, which passed over a considerable extent of their roads. Those roads had all been disturnpiked for the last 10 or 12 years, and the country people contributed nothing towards their maintenance. At present, he did not think there was a single turnpike road within the municipal limits; and, accordingly, if under this Bill Birmingham were included as one of the highway areas, it would have a great deal to pay, but not one single penny to receive. He asked the hon. and gallant Member whether he thought that, in the case of Birmingham at all events, such a provision would be fair? Its position would be that of the stork in the fable, who was invited to sup with the fox. The fox served the meal on a flat dish, and the stork went hungry away, the fox licking up the whole of the dinner. It would be rather hard to expect that Birmingham should be prepared to pay for half of the banquet and get none of the meat. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had got up a sort of triangular duel. If he understood the hon. Gentleman's position accurately, he would actually prefer that injustice should be done to the quarter sessions boroughs than that justice should not be done to the borough which he represented. He would suggest to him that he should interfere 866 at this stage of the proceedings if he could make out a just case for his constituents; and he, for one, would be very happy to support him in any addition which he might desire to make to these exemptions; but he would point out to him that, at all events, there were two primâ facie distinctions to be made between the quarter sessions boroughs and the other boroughs. In the first place, as the President of the Local Government Board had stated, the former had a sort of prescriptive right to immunity in connection with all these charges which had not been conferred by previous legislation upon the non-quarter sessions boroughs, and, in the next place, it would be found that in the vast majority of quarter sessions boroughs the position would be the same as in Birmingham—they would have everything to pay and very little or nothing to receive. In the case of the majority of boroughs which had no quarter sessions, he very much doubted whether the advantage would not be on the side of those boroughs, and whether the hon. Member's constituents would have any reason to thank him if he succeeded in obtaining the exclusion of his own borough from the provisions of this Bill. The real cause of complaint, it seemed to him, was this—that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents would be called upon to pay without having any share in the representation. That was an evil which he should hope at some future time might be remedied. If it be desirable—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had suggested—that quarter sessions boroughs also should come into the general scheme of county government, he saw no possible objection to that; but if they were to be made contributors to county purposes, and those purposes were to include main roads, then it would be necessary to have some other definition of main road than turnpike. They must have some definition of main roads which would include the main lines of traffic in their great towns, so that there might be established a reciprocal obligation on the part of the counties to pay for what they used, while they imposed upon boroughs a tax for what they used.
§ LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, that ever since he had had a seat in that House he had always been anxious that jealousies between counties 867 and boroughs should not be brought forward. He thought there could be no doubt that the main roads running from town to town were of as great importance to the boroughs, and, perhaps, more so, than to the districts through which they ran. He would instance for one the town of Sheffield, where the main road running into the picturesque part of Derbyshire traversed a wild moor district. Was it to be supposed that the farmers of that district would keep up a road for the great traffic from Sheffield, if the town itself did not contribute something towards the maintenance of the road? It was of very little importance to the farmer whether the roads were rough or not; but it was of very great importance to the heavily-laden omnibuses leaving Sheffield that there should be a good, level road. From Brighton to Newhaven the road was carried along the cliff, and was a most expensive one to keep up. It happened to run through two parishes on the South Down, in which the villages lay on the other side of the Down, and was, therefore, hardly of any use whatever to them. Still, under this Bill, it was proposed to exempt Brighton from contributing to the maintenance of this road, though it might be looked upon as the pleasure drive for that town. The probability was that the road would be neglected. He thought it must be manifest to everybody that the quarter sessions towns were very much interested in keeping up the roads; so much so, that although the right hon. Gentleman said that many quarter sessions towns, which were now under Acts of Parliament, would be exempt, yet he (Lord George Cavendish) thought that if the Committee were to omit all mention of quarter sessions boroughs and allow those that could pay to be brought in, it was very probable that before long the other towns would see that it would be to their advantage to contribute to the maintenance of the roads. In justice to the right hon. Gentleman, who had been blamed on both sides of the House for not bringing in a comprehensive measure, he must say that he did not see how it was possible, on the 5th of July, to pass such a measure—and it must be recollected that while Nero was fiddling, Borne was burning. While they were talking about who was to pay, the roads were getting worse. Those who 868 knew anything about roads must know that "a stitch in time saves nine;" and if they put off the settlement of this question for another year the roads would only become worse and worse, and the expenses, already heavy, would be so much greater. The right hon. Gentleman was doing now what the Turnpike Roads Committee, of which he (Lord George Cavendish) had the honour to be Chairman, asked him to do, and that was to get in the narrow end of the wedge by laying down the principle that the counties should provide one-half towards the maintenance of the roads. If they got this principle established they should soon find in the working of it that several other things which they could not now perceive would become necessary; and they might expect in another Session to have what hon. Members were so anxious for—namely, a comprehensive measure passed. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had talked about a new charge being imposed upon boroughs; but he should remember that the in habitants of boroughs had not been released from the old charge to which they were liable under the old turnpike system. Whatever might be said against that system, it would hardly be denied that it was a fair one. The inhabitants of certain boroughs used the county roads, and they paid for them; but, under the present arrangement, they might use the county roads without paying for them. For his part, he could not see why quarter sessions boroughs should be exempted from this charge.
§ MR. CARPENTER GARNIERcould not see why the boroughs should be allowed to use the roads without paying for them.
§ MR. HIBBERTfailed to see on what grounds an exemption could be made in favour of boroughs with quarter sessions any more than boroughs which had not them. In Lancashire there were four quarter sessions boroughs—Liverpool, Manchester, Bolton, and Wigan—but there were many other municipalities with a much larger population than either Wigan or Bolton; and he did not see why places like Oldham and Warrington should be called upon to contribute towards the maintenance of the main roads if the other boroughs in the same county were to be exempted. He did not understand upon what principle such a thing could be proposed; because the 869 boroughs with no quarter sessions had to maintain their own roads just as much as the boroughs which had quarter sessions. The former were very glad to get rid of turnpikes, and so also were the latter. He knew that Manchester opposed nearly every Bill that was brought in for the purpose of extending the Turnpike Acts which existed in its locality. He opposed the Amendment, on the ground that at the present time in Lancashire the boroughs with quarter sessions contributed to the county rate for several purposes. Last year Liverpool and Manchester alone contributed something like £23,000 to the county rate for various purposes. If that be the case in that county, it certainly would be imposing no new burden to call upon them to contribute towards the maintenance of the main roads. He thought that in this case they ought to look upon it as a matter of justice and fairness. He did not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), that it would be unjust to make quarter sessions boroughs pay. On the contrary, he thought it would be very unjust that they should not pay, for this reason—that the inhabitants of such boroughs would use the main roads.
§ MR. GREGORYasked that he might be allowed to put himself right. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had stated that he had not adverted to the provisions of the Municipal Act with respect to boroughs before 1865. Now, he was in the recollection of the Committee when he said that he distinctly stated that the justices had no power of levying a heavy rate. He knew that the county could require a contribution from the municipal borough, and that the county treasurer could require an account. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said there was another question on the 12th clause. As he read the 12th clause, that was a clause which provided for management and jurisdiction, and did not affect county rate. He was sorry this discussion should have arisen, and threatened to become an impediment to the Bill. He should be happy to facilitate the progress of the Bill as well as he could; and with that view it had occurred to him that some qualifying words might be inserted in this clause. He would merely suggest that the Amendment might be accepted without prejudice, and that the question 870 might be left open for consideration at a future opportunity. The difficulty, to his mind, was that if they passed this Amendment as it stood, they would decide for ever the exemption of these boroughs. Therefore, what he suggested was that after the word "or," and before "any order," they should insert the words "subject to and without prejudice to any provisions that may be hereafter made." This would show that further provision was contemplated; and it would prevent this provision from being quoted as closing for ever the consideration of the matter, or prejudicing the consideration of any further provisions which might be hereafter made. He would suggest those words, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider them.
§ MR. KNOWLES, after listening to this very interesting discussion, would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not bring up something on the Report that would meet this case. He agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) that boroughs would have to keep their own highways in repair. Although the traffic on the highways outside the borough did not pay the borough rates there were warehouses, or some places or other within the borough, on which they would pay rates. When they came to look at the heavy traffic from Bolton to Manchester those were two boroughs which would be excluded from the Bill, and the intermediate places would be subjected altogether to the expense of this heavy traffic. They had warehouses in Bolton and Manchester which contributed to the rates; but these places did not contribute to the highway rates. Although this Amendment would free the borough he represented, there was some justice in saying that the boroughs should contribute something. It was a question of degree; and he was sure if the right hon. Gentleman would consider it before the Report they might come to some arrangement.
§ MR. MUNTZsaid, there appeared to be some confusion in regard to this clause. It seemed to him that it was proposed that the boroughs were to pay their share of the county rate, and the counties were not to pay their share for roads within the boroughs. Now, he never could agree to that. It was not a question of policy, 871 as an hon. Member had stated. In the borough which he represented there were 27 miles of highway, and under the clause as it stood they would have to pay for keeping these roads in good order. He wanted to know if they were to keep these 27 miles in order and to pay county rates as well, or would the county keep them? If they were to have fair play, the county should either pay for these roads, or the borough should be excluded from the county rate. The right hon. Gentleman had taken the latter course; and, as far as he could see, it must be maintained. If hon. Members for counties thought the matter should be re-considered, he did hope that they would be prepared to take their share, and would not throw all the burdens on towns which would have, at the same time, to pay county rates.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONconsidered it was a question of expediency and time. He thought that after what had fallen from both sides of the House there seemed to be a general consensus of opinion that it was a fair thing to exclude the towns. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), he did not know how they maintained 27 miles of road, when boroughs would receive half the contribution from the county rate. ["No, no!"] He thought that would be the effect. ["No, no!"] He would suggest that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) should consider the matter, and perhaps he might meet the views that had been expressed. It was a question whether what was required could be done within the time. He did not know whether it was possible for him to postpone the clause, in the hope of bringing it up after with an alteration. There was a clause in the Scotch Bill which gave power to make some provision between boroughs and counties on the taking off of turnpike gates. During five years they had power to make rates. In England they had not this power; and he must say the justice of the case had been very fairly put by hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose boroughs, it seemed to him, should be all included in the Bill. The practical effect would be very slight—very slight, indeed. There was a district in his own county where he found some of the boroughs would actually receive, though others would 872 pay. The change would be very slight; and really the whole principle of rates was that the whole community in the county ought to contribute. If they had an opportunity of working the Bill, very probably, in a short time, a course would be found which would facilitate the question to be decided. It really appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman ought to say whether, under the circumstances, he would postpone the clause, or would reserve this Amendment for later decision. It was really only a question whether it could be introduced now or not.
§ MR. RATHBONEsaid, the towns had no objection to pay their share for the roads which brought traffic into them, provided that the county paid their share of the main roads within the towns. All the towns objected to was that the county charge should be put upon them without any such provision. As soon as the right hon. Gentleman provided for this reciprocal contribution, although the towns might have to pay something more they would not object; but they did object to these charges being thrown upon them without any counter charges being considered at all. Liverpool now paid £16,000 to the county expenditure. All they wished for was that the question should be considered as a whole, and that the matter should be put upon a fair footing.
§ SIR JOSEPH BAILEYremarked that the difficulty in which the Committee now found itself was not a new one, but was a difficulty which was continually occurring in the ordinary course of rating in the country. Wherever the property was partly urban and partly rural, and when the rate for gas or other matters had to be levied, those outside the towns paid one-fourth of the rate; and he would venture to suggest that that principle ought to be considered in the present case, and some modified or mitigated rate might be derived from it.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, it was clear that the cost of the roads outside the boundaries of towns was defrayed by the parishes through which they ran; and he had no doubt that the towns ought to contribute something. But, on the other hand, the argument of the towns was this. There were main roads in their towns which were used by the county as arterial or through 873 roads; and they contended that if they contributed to the maintenance of the roads outside, those outside ought to contribute to the cost of maintenance of the arterial roads inside the borough boundaries. It really came to this—what were main or arterial roads? He did not think that any solution would be arrived at until they had an uniform system of county government. What he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was, that he was proposing this as a stop-gap until he could go more fully into the matter by the County Government Bill. It seemed to him it would be better to pass the clause as it stood, and leave the right hon. Gentleman to bring up a new clause, or Amendments to this, on the Report, and then take a final decision upon it. It would be a pity if, after having gone so far, they did not go on with the matter.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwas sorry to speak so often; but so many questions on this interesting subject naturally arose, that he was obliged to address the Committee somewhat frequently. He should, of course, have no objection to accepting the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory); but whether they would have much effect, he thought was doubtful. It would appear to be an indication that some contribution must hereafter be made from these towns. What he wanted to put before the Committee was the fact that there were many kinds of towns. There were 95 quarter sessions boroughs, and these were boroughs where the county magistrates had no right to go in and levy a county rate. Whether that was for the general interest, or not, was another question. He did not go into that; but as the magistrates had now no authority, if Parliament did put them into these towns for these purposes, representation must be given to the towns for county purposes. Besides these 95 quarter sessions boroughs, there were more than 100 having separate petty sessional jurisdiction, and there were, also, local board districts. The whole of these would come in, for better, or for worse; and thus an enormous majority of the towns populations of the Kingdom would come in. By this Amendment of the clause, he was endeavouring to draw a clear line between them. He did not think there was much justice or injustice on either side. 874 Many quarter sessional boroughs would pay more than they gained if they were brought in. Others would gain more than they paid. Difficult questions as regarded main roads would arise; and he did not think it would be well to add to the difficulties of the Bill by including these quarter sessional boroughs, which were not included at the present time. He thought it would be well to accept the Amendment with the words of the hon. Member; and if, in the course of discussion, it should appear that the opinion of the Committee was different, words could be added on the Report. With regard to remarks by an hon. Gentleman opposite, it never was his intention that anything in the language of this Amendment should restrict the operation of the clause to which he gave his assent the other day. If the hon. Member thought that would be the effect of his Amendment, he must add the words "notwithstanding anything in the previous part of this Act contained."
§ Amendment amended, by inserting after the word "or," the words "without prejudice to any provision to be hereafter made."
§
MR. RYLANDS moved that the proposed Amendment should be amended by the omission of the words—
having a separate court of quarter sessions under section 117 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1835,
and the insertion of the words "incorporated under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act of 1835." The clause would then provide that all such boroughs would be excluded from the expenses to be contributed towards the maintenance of the disturnpiked and main roads out of the rate. The effect would be to exclude not only quarter sessions boroughs, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, but also boroughs not having a separate court of quarter sessions. In support of this, he pointed out that every argument the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had used—and used with much force—against that town being included in the provisions of the clause, applied quite as strongly to boroughs not having the separate courts of quarter sessions. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the fact that there were markets in his borough
875
to which, country people brought their produce for sale week by week: that was also a very common thing in boroughs without quarter sessions. In the borough with which he was connected, in Lancashire, large markets were held, and country people went to the markets with produce for sale, and they were never asked to contribute anything towards the maintenance of the streets they used. The hon. Member (Mr. Chamberlain) said, with regard to Birmingham, that there were no turnpike roads within the borough. Under this Amendment the borough which he represented would have no claim upon the county rate for any turnpike road within the borough. There might be a few exceptional cases; but with regard to the majority of large towns, the streets formed no part of the turnpike roads. Well, now, his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham seemed to draw a distinction between quarter sessional boroughs and municipal boroughs. It seemed that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) drew the same distinction. The right hon. Gentleman said there was a prescriptive right to boroughs having quarter sessions to be free of all charges by county authorities, and there was also a prescriptive right to municipal boroughs not to be charged with the maintenance of high roads. There was no power in the hands of county authorities to charge municipal boroughs with any portion of the expense of the maintenance of roads. Now, they were trying by this clause to impose a charge on municipal boroughs which had not been previously imposed upon them. It was said that the magistrates had a right of county rates on municipal boroughs without quarter sessions; but they had no right to levy them on boroughs with quarter sessions. That did not bear on the question before the Committee. The county authority had the right to raise rates for police purposes; but, of course, a sessions borough having its own police, the county did not make the charge; but it was equally so with municipal boroughs. The county authorities could levy charges for prisons and gaols formerly, but now only in connection with the administration of justice. There was no authority whatever for any county magistrates to levy charges upon municipal boroughs, or other boroughs, for the maintenance of
876
roads. The right hon. Gentleman was instituting a new charge. He was rather surprised to hear that there was to be a charge of £150,000 a-year. That was not a trifling charge to be laid upon a county to which the boroughs would contribute. [Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH: Upon all the counties of England.] He (Mr. Rylands) thought it was on the county of Lancashire. What he contended for was, that there was no reason whatever for distinguishing municipal boroughs without courts of quarter sessions from boroughs with courts of quarter sessions; and, therefore, he moved the Amendment which he had suggested.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he saw no reason why, if exemptions were made in the case of any particular class of boroughs, similar exemptions should not be made in the case of towns which were under the management of local Boards of Health, and which maintained their own local roads. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that as there was at present a difficulty in the way of rating quarter sessions boroughs where no rate was now levied, he should omit the latter part of the clause, so as to give power to levy a contribution upon quarter sessions boroughs on a basis to be fixed by representatives of the boroughs and of the counties in which they were situate. He thought this would get over the difficulty of rating boroughs which had never before been subject to the payment of rates.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought the proposal of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would not meet the difficulty, as there was no such institution as an order on the Council in the case of a municipal borough, and the Amendment would not therefore agree with the clause. He admitted the cogency of the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), and was perfectly willing to undertake that he would, on the Report, provide, if possible, some limitation on the amount to be contributed by the boroughs generally towards the maintenance of the county roads.
§ MR. RYLANDSpointed out that the county rate levied in municipal boroughs was raised by means of a precept addressed 877 by the county authorities to the overseers, and by them passed on to the representatives of the municipalities; therefore, the order on the Council was an order made by the overseers to cover the purposes, or one of them, of the Act—namely, to maintain the roads within the county.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHrejoined, that the order referred to was not an order under the particular Act referred to.
§ Amendment (Mr. Rylands) negatived.
§ Original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ On Motion, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
§ MR. LEIGHTONsaid, he felt some hesitation in moving that the clause be altogether omitted after it had been discussed at length and amended by the Committee. He felt it his duty, however, to move his Resolution, and in so doing he should keep within the narrowest limits the reasons which he had to urge. The clause defined two things. In the first place, it stated that main roads were to be roads which ceased to be turnpike roads in the year 1870. On this point he wished for a little information. He should like to know the mileage of the roads in England which would be affected by this provision; and particularly how, in the different counties, the highway districts and parishes would be pecuniarily affected by the changes which were proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Up to the present time no information had been given on this point; and in saying this he did not complain of any discourtesy on the part of his right hon. Friend, because he did not believe that it was in the power of the President of the Local Government Board to give any information. In the case of one county he had taken the trouble to ascertain what would be the effect of the proposed legislation. He had taken the case of two highway districts in the county, 20 miles apart, and having no community of traffic. He found that in one district the main roads cost for maintenance £45 per mile, and in the other £23 per mile. There being, as he had said, no community of traffic between these two districts, and no common us or of the 878 roads, the spendthrifts of one district would be benefited by the economists of the other if the Bill were passed with the clause to which he objected included in it. He, therefore, thought there ought to be included in the Bill a clause which should make an allocation of rating or contribution between the different highway districts in each county, where the cost of maintaining the roads in those counties differed. If the provision was a good one as far as highway districts were concerned, how much more necessary did it become, and how much more grievous and frequent would the injustice become, when the whole areas of counties had to be dealt with. The example he had given was illustrative of the difficulties which would arise in a greater or less degree in every county affected by the Bill if it became an Act of Parliament. There being some highway districts which had no main roads, and others which contained main roads of considerable length, he could see no fairness in asking the first-named class to pay towards the maintenance of the roads which traversed the districts he had mentioned last. For instance, there was the great Watling Street, which had been a main road for over 1,000 years; but which, under the condition which had been put into the Bill by his right hon. Friend, would become, technically, a highway. It was no answer to him to say that anomalies of this kind would be remedied by subsequent clauses in the Bill; for the old axiom that "prevention is better than cure" was based on common sense, and an anomaly ought not to be included in one clause in order that it might be cured in another. It was a poor excuse to say that the cure of a hardship which might he inflicted by a clause of the Bill would be left in the hands of those to whom the administration of the provisions of the Bill, which involved great changes, would be intrusted. Another objection he had to the Bill was that, so far from giving a single half-penny of relief to the ratepayers, it would increase the rates. The rates in the highway districts would continue; the county rates would be increased, and the money to meet both imposts would come out of the same pockets. In many cases where the turnpikes no longer existed, the Bill would inflict great hardship upon the parishes, and no attempt had been made 879 by his right ton. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) to remove or alleviate those hardships, although, as far as he knew, no one attempted to deny their existence. All that his right hon. Friend had done had been to make the grievance common to all the rural districts, so that no one of them could say it had been exceptionally treated. This was all very well; but community in suffering was not likely to induce the sufferers to hold their tongues. Under the provisions of the Bill the county rates would be increased by, he believed, about one-half, and the highway rates would not be diminished in anything like the same proportion. The courts of quarter sessions would have to double, treble, and perhaps quadruple, the staffs in the departments of the county surveyors, and the highway boards would have to maintain their staffs of officials at the number they at present employed. So much for the financial part of the question. He would next deal, briefly, with the administrative part of the Bill, which was, in his opinion, open to even more severe censure. The administrative portion of the scheme amounted to this—that every main road was in future to be governed by two authorities. The Government was going to oust the old and ancient power of the parish officers; to oust the discretion of that more newly created power, the highway district authority, and to place the superintendence of the main roads in the hands of the courts of quarter sessions. There were even now sometimes strained relations between the courts of quarter sessions and the other local authorities, with respect to the repair of the county roads over bridges; and he asked the Committee whether it was wise to open wide the door for further conflicts at a time when the Government was proposing to consolidate all the local authorities? It must not be supposed that under the provisions of the present Bill the sole duty of the courts of quarter sessions would be to pay the bills which the highway boards sent in to them. He felt certain that the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Cavendish), as the Chairman of the Turnpike Acts Continuance Committee, would bear him out in saying that this was not the idea of the Committee. That Committee had said, over and over again, that as the main roads in the country were deteriorating, 880 some controlling and superintending authority should be placed over the district local authorities. That most unpopular and disagreeable work was proposed to be put in the hands of the courts of quarter sessions. They would have frequently to come down upon the parish authorities and the way wardens, and to refuse them money raised by means of the rates whenever, in their opinion, the roads were out of repair. He could not see that there was sufficient ground for making so great a local disturbance for the sake of effecting a merely temporary arrangement—in other words, until his right hon. Friend could succeed in passing the Bill for county government. As far as the present clause was concerned, it was not asked for by the courts of quarter sessions, the highway boards, the Chambers of Agriculture, the parishes, the landowners, the farmers, or, indeed, anyone directly interested in the subject. Even the Turnpike Acts Continuance Committee did not ask for it in the form proposed. He would put it most seriously to the Government and the Committee, whether this Bill was to be the only legislative out-come of the Resolution which was passed unanimously last year—that the control of the quarter sessions over the rates should be placed in the hands of a more representative authority? It seemed to him that it would be a most satirical commentary upon good Resolutions if, in the face of that Resolution, they were to place in the hands of the quarter sessions the administration of £250,000 more of rates than they had at present; and to take from every highway board, and every parish, that measure of self-government which they had at present, of which they were especially jealous, in respect of roads for which, before the law, they were alone responsible, and for the repair of which they found the money. He thought the House could hardly pass this measure without passing a Vote of Censure upon their own Resolution; and, therefore, he moved the rejection of the clause.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobjected to the speech of the hon. Member, on the ground that it went to the principle of the Bill, and ought to have been delivered, if at all, on the Motion for second reading. No Bills were more easy to be talked out than Bills of this 881 class; and therefore the principle of the Bill having been affirmed on the second reading, he deprecated long discussions of its principles in Committee. The substance of the plan contained in the Bill was proposed by him two years ago—long before the Resolution of last Session, to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, and with which it had nothing whatever to do. The principle of the Bill was to charge half the expense of the main roads upon the counties; and although this was analogous to, it was not identical with, the Resolution to which the hon. Member had referred.
§ SIR EDMUND LECHMEREhoped the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to fix a period for the purposes of this clause more nearly approximating to the year in which turnpikes were abolished. Otherwise, to take an instance, those of his constituents who lived near Malvern would have to bear all thy expenses of their own roads, and also half the cost of less important roads in a distant part of the county. If the right hon. Gentleman would not consent to alter the year, perhaps he would consent to allow the local authorities to define what really were main roads.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 12 (Description of highway areas) agreed to.
§ Clause 13 (Power to declare ordinary highway to be a main road.)
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH moved, in page 5, lines 15 and 19, to leave out "a provisional," and insert "an."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
SIR GEORGE JENKINSON moved, in page 5, line 20, after "accordingly," to insert—
but such application as above shall not be necessary in the case of main turnpike roads, or roads that have been such, and which are between main arterial towns (such as Bristol and Gloucester), and which roads have been for some time maintained by highway districts.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the proposed Amendment was unnecessary, and would disturb an arrangement which had seemed satisfactory to the Committee. If the roads to which the hon. Baronet referred were chargeable to the district, they would come within the category of main roads.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
882§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH moved, in page 5, line 29, to leave out "seventy," and insert "sixty."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. RYLANDSobjected to the clause, for the reason that it would give to the county authorities very exceptional powers without any guarantees that the authorities would possess a representative character.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 14 (Power to reduce main road to status of ordinary highway).
§ MR. SEVERNE, who had proposed, in page 5, line 29, to leave out "seventy," and insert "sixty," said, that after the discussion on the 11th clause he should withdraw his proposition.
§ MR. PAGET moved to omit the word "January" (1879)—the date for the county authority to make an application to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order declaring that the road ought not to become a main road—and to substitute "May." It might be impossible for the application to be made before the 1st day of January. The Act would not be passed before the month of August next, and the first quarter sessions afterwards would not be held until October. May, instead of January, would therefore, he thought, be more convenient for the issuing of the Order.
§ Amendment agreed to.
MR. PAGETalso moved to insert in the same clause, page 6, line 3—
The Local Government Board, if of opinion that there is probable cause for an application under this section, shall cause the road to be inspected, and if satisfied that it ought to cease to be a main road and become an ordinary highway, shall make an order accordingly"—
§ after the word "ought," the words "not to become or."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYinquired if there were any provision in the Bill for the repair of roads dividing two counties? There was a case in his own county and Warwickshire, and the question had arisen as to who should repair it? The consequence was, the road was impassable?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the question was one which would be considered hereafter.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 15 (Turnpike road in several counties), agreed to.
§ Clause 16 (Accounts of expenses of maintenance of main roads).
§
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH moved, in page 6, line 18, after "shall," to insert—
where the accounts of the highway authority are audited under this Act or under section two hundred and forty-seven of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' be audited in the same manner as the other accounts of such authority, and where the accounts of the highway authority are not so audited shall.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 17 (Highway district situate in more than one county), agreed to.
§ Extraordinary Traffic.
§ Clause 18 (Power of road authority to recover expenses of extraordinary traffic).
§
SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON moved, in page 6, line 34, after "that," to insert—
having regard to the average expense of repairing highways or main roads respectively in the neighbourhood.
The words had been admitted into the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill, in the clause dealing with extraordinary traffic, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would admit them into this Bill.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhad no objection to the insertion of the words.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, that as he gathered from the words proposed to be inserted, "extraordinary expenses" meant "expenses extraordinary," arising from exceptional circumstances, or exceptional causes.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the words were in the Scotch Bill, and if his hon. Friend would defer his question until the Report, his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate would explain why such words had been inserted.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, that after the remarks of the right hon. 884 Gentleman, he would withdraw his Motion.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. PELL (for Mr. HEYGATE) moved, in page 6, line 34, to leave out "extraordinary" (expenses), and insert "considerable."
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that he had no objection to alteration in the wording, though he did not think that "considerable" would meet the case. It was a question whether the word "excessive" would not apply.
§ LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHthought "extraordinary" the better word.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONinquired if the carriage of materials for the erection of farm buildings or cottages would come under the word "extraordinary?"
§ LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHthought the county authorities should be guided by their own common sense.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, that "extraordinary" would, of course, mean something beyond the "ordinary" expenses incurred in repairing the highway, by reason of the damage caused by extraordinary traffic.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON moved, in page 6, line 35, after "highway," to insert the words "or main road"— incurred by such authority in repairing such highway or main road.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought the Amendment unnecessary. Highway meant a main road.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON moved, in page 6, line 36, after "caused by," to insert "excessive weight passing along the same or by." The same words were in the Scotch Bill, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consent to their insertion now.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the same objection was applicable to this Amendment as to the word "extraordinary." If extraordinary traffic caused the damage, it must be by excessive weight. The words "extraordinary damage" required no further explanation. He would consider whether the words proposed should be inserted in the clause.
MR. PAGETwould like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman intended to define "extraordinary" in the sense of excessive weight, excessive traffic, or traffic from pits, quarries, or any particular industry which must necessarily give rise to considerable traffic?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the meaning of the word "extraordinary" would be properly considered when they came to it.
§ MR. KNOWLESdid not see how they could schedule the words "extraordinary traffic" in the Bill. The carriage of materials for the erection of farm buildings, cottages, and the like, would be ordinary traffic. Where there were large works—such as the construction of cotton-mills—it might be taken as extraordinary traffic. However, the local authorities must use their own common sense in the matter.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. SEVERNE moved, in page 6, line 37, after "works," to insert "the working of traffic from mines, quarries, pits." There were several cases in his own neighbourhood in which it would be difficult to define between ordinary and extraordinary traffic. What they wanted to provide against was extraordinary traffic between a mine and a railway, which caused dreadful damage to the roads, and which by no means could be paid for by the imposition of a toll. Traction engines did not in any way contribute to the funds of a district over which they passed. At all events, some means should be devised for providing against such extraordinary traffic.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the clause, as it stood, referred to extraordinary traffic, although the works mentioned therein might only be considered as ordinary traffic—"building operations, construction of works, or other exceptional causes." He took it that the words "exceptional causes" would be governed by the preceding words, "building operations," and that might be held to refer to extraordinary traffic. If so, he thought the Amendment should not be accepted.
§ MR. A. H. BROWNobjected to the words proposed being inserted in the Bill. There might be extraordinary traffic in one part of a county and ordinary in another—a difference in agricultural and mining districts. It might 886 be ordinary traffic in an agricultural, and extraordinary in a mining district. He therefore hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed. The authorities who had jurisdiction in the matter must be trusted to use their common sense, guided by the light of their experience.
§ LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHthought it desirable that some such words should be inserted. In his district, nothing damaged the roads so much as the carriage of heavy stones from the quarries. He was informed that in his neighbourhood these quarries caused damage to the roads to the extent of £200 a-year. There were other works of a similar character contiguous, and immense traffic was carried on between them and the railway stations. It was important, therefore, that some steps should be taken to make the heavy stone traffic pay its fair proportion to the repair of the roads.
§ MR. KNOWLESsaid, that the words proposed might act pretty well in a district such as the noble Lord represented; but he believed they would create a great deal of confusion in mining districts. It would be said that the traffic was extraordinary, and differences of opinion might exist. The words inserted would be dangerous. Where there were quarries such as the noble Lord described, the word "extraordinary" might follow; but in a mining district a different state of things might prevail.
§ MR. CLARE READthought the word "extraordinary" pointed to something very temporary in the clause. The clause referred to building operations, which certainly did not go on for ever. Those were exceptional causes, and he thought the word "excessive" would meet the case.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the question was not a simple one. There was a provision in the County Bill for dealing with traffic of the kind through the agency of the turnpike system. If persons owning quarries, mines, and pits, and whose works actually tended towards the destruction of the roads, could be placed under some contribution, it might work very well in some parishes; but in other parishes a different state of things might exist. He would not object to the insertion of the words, but would rather consider them on the Report. The worst cases that had been 887 laid before him were cases in which the roads had been destroyed by the construction of great buildings, and the carriage of minerals and stone.
§ MR. RYLANDSconsidered it would be a great injustice to deprive the owners of mines of the facilities which they had for years enjoyed. It would be great injustice to place a new charge upon property of that kind, for in no sense could it be justified by the circumstances of the case. Of course, if there were any exceptional traffic, or traffic of an extraordinary nature, arising out of extraordinary circumstances, it would be perfectly right that it should be recognized in the provisions of the Bill, and the parties should be charged for it who took it over the roads. But if the House were going to upset arrangements which had existed for years, they would be introducing a principle of a novel character, and not at all a satisfactory one. Litigation and annoyance would arise in consequence, for it would be impossible to draw any distinct line. He protested against the way in which the Bill had been altered, first on one principle and then on another.
§ MR. BEACHsaid, that great damage was undoubtedly done to the roads by the carriage of heavy traffic, and some provision was needed to meet the expense. It was only fair and reasonable that those who caused the damage should contribute some proportion of the cost of repairing it.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought a good deal of the objection arose from the word "exceptional" in the clause. Some such addition as "any other exceptional cause whatsoever" might be advantageously made. It would then be of a general character, and would not be confined to the class of subjects to which they had referred.
§ MR. FLOYERsaid, that if it was intended to provide for occasional traffic the nature of such traffic should be clearly defined in the Bill. It was a very considerable power which was proposed to be given to the auditor, a power to decide whether an outlay was proper or not.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had not yet received an answer to the question he had asked, whether the words "extraordinary traffic" in the clause meant "extraordinary and temporary traffic?" He understood, however, that the right 888 hon. Gentleman meant that the traffic should be extraordinary and temporary, and if that was so, he had made a mistake in accepting the Amendment which he had, because that extended the clause in a manner which was likely to cause much inconvenience and litigation. As far, therefore, as he could at present see, he should have not only to vote against the Amendment, but against the clause itself. The point which had been raised was a very serious one, and the power which was going to be given was very exceptional and extraordinary. He had not hitherto opposed it, because he knew the necessity of something being done; and he would not now oppose it, provided they confined the matter to cases of an exceptional character. It was not, however, within the true principles of legislation that they should confer this great power on the surveyor and the justices of the peace unless the case could not be otherwise met.
MR. PAGEThoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way. This Amendment was one of the most valuable portions of the Bill. No doubt, as originally laid down, the cases of extraordinary traffic were confined to those which were of an entirely temporary character; and it was perfectly true that the Amendment introduced a distinct and different principle, which would make habitual and incessant traffic extraordinary traffic. It was only right and fair this should be done; because he knew many cases where roads were ruined and enormous expenses incurred by such traffic. The clause, as amended, would only maintain the old principle, that those who used the roads should pay for them. It would have to be established to the satisfaction of the county authorities, upon the certificate of the surveyor, that the traffic had been extraordinary.
§ MR. BRISTOWEsaid, any hon. Member reading the Bill, as it originally stood, must have come to the conclusion that the Government meant that the extraordinary traffic referred to in this section should be confined to traffic of a temporary character. He had no objection to the clause as it stood, especially as the person against whom the order was made would have the power of appeal against the county authority. When the hon. Member opposite talked of mines, quarries, and pits destroying the roads, he should have remembered 889 that mines, quarries, and pits brought in people who contributed to the expenses, by increasing the number of persons liable to be rated for the repairs of the roads.
§ MR. J. R. YORKEhoped the Government would not yield to the Amendment, because its adoption would only create confusion.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, they would entirely alter the clause if they inserted the words of the Amendment. Some hon. Members appeared to think that all agricultural traffic was ordinary, while any traffic which did not belong to the farmers was extraordinary traffic; and they got hold of mines, pits, and quarries, and proposed that they should be mulcted. After all, farmers had heavy traffic as well as the owners of pits and quarries; and a farmer who farmed agricultural land might require to use the road a great deal more than the man who had a farm of grass land. "Extraordinary" was said to mean that one man had more traffic than another; but how were they to define that? It was difficult to stop at mines, pits, and quarries. Take the case of a great brewer, who sent his vans all over the country with loads quite as heavy as those of any pitmen. Were they going to treat the traffic of the brewer as extraordinary and exceptional? It was most unfair to say to a mining district that the traffic from their pits and quarries was extraordinary, when it was really only ordinary traffic. Why they should pick out the mining districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and say their traffic was extraordinary, while the traffic of the farmer was only to be looked upon as ordinary, passed his comprehension.
§ MR. PELLthought, when a change was being made in the law, a concession of this kind might be made to those who used the roads but little, but who paid largely to them.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that in the recent discussion on the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill the same difficulty arose as to defining what was extraordinary traffic, and it was there found that something must be left to the discretion of the local authorities. He would, therefore, suggest that they should adopt the words of the Scotch Bill, and that this clause should be made to read— 890
Where extraordinary expenses have been incurred by such authority in repairing such highway by reason of the damage caused by extraordinary traffic thereon, such authority may recover in summary manner.If this suggestion were approved, they would have no difficulty in defining whether the extraordinary damage arose from a pit or mine, or any other cause. This would be a simple solution of the point; and if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment, he would move the one he had just suggested.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it was quite evident, from the number of Amendments which had been put on the Paper on this subject, a great deal of interest was felt in the question, and that some means should be provided in regard to excessive and outrageous damage to roads. He did not go so far as to say that those who used the roads had alone an interest in them. The ratepayers, as a body, were interested in good roads in their locality, and it was quite a fallacy to say that the old turnpike system was instituted for the purpose of making those who used the roads alone pay for them. He thought they might trust the Scotch Members to have made the alteration which they had done in their Bill after great consideration; and, for his part, he should be willing for the clause to be amended in some such way as that which had just been suggested.
MR. PAGEThoped the insiduous Amendment which had been suggested would not be agreed to, because there were antecedent words in the Scotch Bill which gave the word "extraordinary" a different meaning to that which it would have in this Bill. If the whole of the Scotch clause was embodied in the English Bill, it might, perhaps, answer the object in view—not otherwise.
§ MR. D. DAVIESconsidered that, in a matter of this kind, they must give and take a little, because it was very difficult to make a law which would suit everybody. Some hon. Members seemed to think that the proprietors of large mineral works and quarries abused the roads; but that was not so. He had had to pay large sums for roads in which he had no interest whatever, and which he never used, because he had made his own roads. He had no objection to the 891 clause as it stood, and he thought there should be a right of appeal. It would be a great hardship to put the Amendment into the clause; because it might have the effect of stopping these kinds of works, the profits from which were not at present very large.
§ MR. KNOWLESwished to point out that there was a great deal of difference between permanent and temporary traffic. What was ordinary traffic in one part of the country was extraordinary in other places. When a new waterworks or railway came into a neighbourhood they used the roads largely, and they left them in a bad state of repair. That would come under extraordinary traffic, and he thought the clause was sufficient to meet it. But where new mines were opened the traffic was no longer extraordinary, but ordinary, when the works of construction were completed, and the regular business was being carried on. The Amendment would be very dangerous, indeed, because under it they would be able to rate mines and quarries in an extraordinary manner.
§ MR. DODSONconfessed he did not very much like the clause as it stood, and every Amendment hitherto proposed seemed to make it worse than it was. The first thing they must be perfectly clear on was this—Did they, in any way, mean in the words extraordinary and exceptional to include traffic of a permanent character? He entirely objected to any traffic of a permanent character being included under those words, because it would open the door to any amount of jobbery. He saw no reason why it should be left to the discretion—the summary jurisdiction, in fact—of one man to determine what was and what was not exceptional and extraordinary traffic, and what, therefore, ought to pay a specially high rate. If any provision of this sort was to be introduced at all, it ought to be strictly confined to exceptional and extraordinary traffic in the sense of temporary traffic. To adopt the Amendment would be to depart from this principle; because in districts where quarrying and mining operations were carried on, the traffic to and from the quarries and pits would be part of the ordinary and regular traffic of the district. His hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had laid down the principle 892 that in fixing the rates regard should be had to the amount a man contributed to the rates, and to the quantity of traffic he put upon the roads. This was much too vague and fine a distinction to be satisfactorily made. If a man was to be charged an exceptionally high rate who carried stones, or flints, or iron, over the roads, what was to be said to the man who carried timber? To make rules of this kind would lead to endless litigation; more money would be spent in law than would be saved in rates, and any number of conflicting decisions would be given in different parts of the country. He would rather not have this clause at all; but if it must be adopted, it should be adopted in such a form as that it would be expressly limited to such extraordinary traffic as was purely temporary. He should, therefore, suggest that the Amendment before the Committee be negatived, and that in line 37, after the word "exceptional," the words "and temporary" be inserted. Subject to some such Amendment, he might be induced to agree to the clause; otherwise, he should certainly oppose it.
§ MR. CLARE READsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman meant that if an evil were temporary it must be paid for; but if it was permanent, the person or persons responsible were to get off scot-free. This was a line of argument which he could not understand. As a member of the Turnpike Acts Continuance Committee, he might say that they had frequently continued trusts on account of this "extraordinary" traffic from mines, quarries, and other works, the owners of which, in the absence of turnpikes, would contribute very little to the maintenance of the roads. He therefore hoped the Committee would adopt the sense, if not the words, of the proposal.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, it seemed to him that the hon. Members for Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) and Mid-Somersetshire (Mr. Paget) had lost sight of the main object of the Bill, which was not that the persons using the roads should pay for them, but that they should be paid for by those who derived benefit from their use. The ratepayers in a district were more largely benefited by excessive traffic than were those by whom the traffic was created. In the county from which he came there 893 were extensive collieries and other works, and the ratepayers gladly paid for the maintenance of the roads, being amply compensated by the existence of large industries in their midst. He, therefore, hoped they would proceed on the principle which he had described, and not adopt that which had been suggested by the hon. Member.
§ MR. SEVERNE, in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, said, his objection was to any limitation of the word "extraordinary" in reference to traffic by any special definition. He therefore thought the working of the clause would be greatly assisted by the Amendments of the hon. Members for Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) and Mid-Somersetshire. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had expressed his willingness to deal with exceptional cases; but he had made no practical suggestions to that end. To throw the whole of these burdens upon the ratepayers would be to saddle them with a very heavy responsibility, and he did not think it would be fair to do this. If any Minister was to propose an income tax of 1s. or 2s. in the pound, there would be a great outcry in the country about it; but to put these dues upon the ratepayers was, practically, to do something of the kind.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, the hon. Member was wrong in supposing that though he objected to the Amendment he had suggested any other means of dealing with the question. At the same time, he might say that, in his opinion, the 20th clause of the Bill was very much to the point. That would protect the ratepayers against excessive damage, which did not result from fair wear and tear, but from the roads in hilly districts being torn up by the scorched wheels of waggons carrying heavy loads down hills. It was to meet cases of this kind that the clause in question was put into the Bill, and he thought this was all that needed to be done.
§ MR. GOLDNEYthought that the ratepayers in any locality had a right to compensation for exceptional and temporary damage done to the roads by reason of the construction of works, the building of houses, or any other cause from which such damage might result. But if a clause was put into the Bill defining only certain kinds of damage as 894 exceptional, it would lead to no end of litigation, and would put no limit to the favouritism which might be practised by those who had charge of the roads. He thought the case would be met by adding the word "temporary" after "exceptional" in the clause.
§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIANthought endless difficulty would be occasioned by making the clause apply to other than "temporary" obstruction of the roads. He would, therefore, urge the propriety of allowing the clause to pass in its original form. There must, in a matter of this kind, be a little give and take. There were, within his own knowledge, heavily-rated collieries which did not use the public roads at all, but carried their produce by railways, which they themselves had constructed and maintained at much cost. In illustration of what he had called the give and take-principle, he might mention the case of a proprietor of woodlands, who for many years had paid rates for the maintenance of roads without using them. Suppose such a man had a heavy fall of timber on his estate, and had to send it along the roads, would it be fair to call upon him to pay for the temporary and exceptional damage, when he had during the whole time the trees were growing paid rates towards the cost of the roads without using them?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he quite agreed that the clause ought not to be diverted from its original intention, so far as to convert an extraordinary into an ordinary traffic; but he thought the use of the word "extraordinary" in the clause would protect alike the ratepayers and those who used the roads. He repudiated the notion of specially taxing any particular trades, and suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, promising on the Report to bring up words which would embody the spirit of the Amendment which had been proposed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID moved, in page 6, line 36, to leave out all the words after the word "thereon," down to the word "cause," in line 38, inclusive.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it would be much better to omit the whole clause, as the right hon. Gentleman had promised to amend it, and 895 to bring up a new clause at a later period.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no objection to that; but he thought the proper course would be to pass the clause as it stood, and then he would undertake to amend it.
§ MR. RYLANDSentirely objected to the proposal that the clause relating to extraordinary traffic should be adopted from the Scotch Bill, inasmuch as the latter was drawn upon lines entirely different to those of the English Bill, and did not, moreover, levy the rates on property in the same incidence. The Scotch Bill, which should be looked upon as totally distinct, expressly excluded from its operation all places of above 5,000 inhabitants. ["No, no!"]
§ MR. KNOWLESasked if the hon. Member for Burnley was in Order in criticizing the provisions of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was out of Order in discussing the provisions of a Bill other than that before the Committee.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, his intention was to compare the two Bills, and to point out to the Committee that under the Scotch Bill large trading and manufacturing places, and towns of upwards of 5,000 inhabitants, were absolutely exempt from the rate. He thought the clause should be withdrawn. With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), he ventured to suggest that the Committee should allow the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) to negative the clause and bring up a fresh one, to be discussed as an Amendment in Committee, an arrangement which, he thought, would be better than a discussion on the Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would withdraw the clause, and bring the matter, subsequently, before the Committee. He thought the Scotch clause which, with the addition of certain words, was originally taken out of the present Bill, would be found, on the whole, more nearly to convey the opinion that the extraordinary traffic contemplated should be occasional and temporary; while, by the present clause, the limits as to building or occasional use of the roads were too narrow, and 896 might be extended without departing from the intention of the Bill.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDwished to submit to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of introducing an arbitration clause, which should apply to cases of extraordinary damage. This suggestion had been made to him by many persons, and was, in his opinion, of considerable value.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Discontinuance of Unnecessary Highways.
§ Clause 19 (Unnecessary highways may be declared not repairable at the public expense).
§ MR. LEIGHTON, in moving to leave out from the word "that," in page 7, line 11, to the end of the clause, and to insert the words—
Such highway is unnecessary for public use, such authority may place notices at both ends of the said highway declaring the same to be unnecessary. The said notices shall remain for six months, during which time any person may appeal to the court of quarter sessions against the said declaration. If there be no appeal, or if the appeal be dismissed, then, at the end of the aforesaid period, the expenses of repairing such highway shall cease to be defrayed out of any public rate. Notice of appeal shall be given to the clerk of the highway board within reasonable time,said, that his reason for placing that Amendment on the Paper was that the mode of dealing with useless highways was found not to work well. It was necessary to ensure to the public proper notice of any intended change in the maintenance of highways supposed to be useless. And it was also necessary to afford sufficient facilities to the Board or authority who had charge of the highways to enable them to act. He believed that the clause which he had put on the Paper would undoubtedly meet these requirements. Under the existing law, notices and advertisements had to be inserted in the county papers, and a number of technical formalities complied with; but, besides the heavy cost of these, persons who used the roads were not likely to read advertisements, and the consequence was that the notices were practically of no use. He believed the clause would sufficiently guard the public against the shutting up of roads which ought to be maintained.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member, that the Amendment 897 which he proposed to move was, in effect, a new clause, and that there was another Amendment on the clause to be proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) which, under such circumstances, should be first considered.
§ MR. LEIGHTONsaid, he would, then, move to leave out all the words of the clause.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHpointed out that there were many pit-falls in the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member, that would render it unacceptable to the Committee. He, therefore, hoped it would be withdrawn.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. PAGETremarked, that the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill provided that when a road had been proved to be unnecessary as a public highway, its use might be discontinued and the road itself shut up. It was, in his opinion, desirable that the present Bill should make a similar provision for the shutting up of those roads in England which were also proved to be unnecessary as public highways; inasmuch as by continued use, after the means of maintaining them were taken away, they would become so many "Sloughs of Despond," and the sources of much danger and inconvenience. It was his intention to bring up a clause on the Report, providing for the shutting up, with the consent of the Highway Board, of certain roads proved to be unnecessary for the public use, if it were decided that they should not be repaired at the public expense. He did not wish to retard the progress of the Bill; but he should also have to deal with the shutting up of footpaths at the same time, by a clause providing that "no footpath should be entirely closed without the consent of the Highway Board." He believed there were many cases of footpaths being shut up solely by the influence of the vestry; which meant, perhaps, the action of a single squire and a few people living around him.
§ MR. HARDCASTLEthought that the first part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Leighton) was extremely reasonable; and although the hon. Gentleman had withdrawn his Amendment, he proposed, in page 8, line 4, after the word "affixed," to add the words— 898
And by placing notices at both ends of the said highway, declaring the same to be unnecessary.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member that it was not competent to him to move that Amendment.
§ MR. KNIGHTsaid, that a great evil would be created by giving to courts of petty sessions the power of shutting up a road. In his opinion, the closing of a road should not take place until the court of quarter sessions had decided that it should be shut up.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Bye-laws by County Authority.
§ Clause 20 (Power of county authority to make bye-laws).
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH moved, in page 8, lines 29 and 30, to leave out "their jurisdiction," and insert "any highway area in their county."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. PELLsaid that the sub-section 1, to which his Amendment related, empowered the county authorities to make certain bye-laws, among them that of prohibiting from the use of the roads waggons having wheels the width and number of which they did not approve, and which were not proportioned to the weight carried by the waggon. If that sub-section became law, great inconvenience would result. Under the system, of tolls, every body had fair warning, and if a person transgressed the law he could be amerced on the spot by the cart and load being placed on the weighbridge, and the driver being made to pay the extra toll. Under the present section of the clause, if it became law, one county authority might say that a waggon should carry only three tons, whilst the authority of another county could fix the weight to be carried at four tons. The consequence would be that in passing through different counties one's waggon, horse, and man, might be taken nobody knew where, perhaps to the county town, put upon weigh-bridges, and then sent home. The proper way to meet the question of weight and the size of wheels was to make the roads themselves fit to carry them; and the best roads throughout the country, as well as the London roads, afforded a proof that this would be quite practicable. He was inclined 899 to think that the operation of the subsection would be extremely inconvenient, and would have the effect of rather encouraging the county authorities to sanction the public roads being left in a bad state.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 31, to leave out from the word "say," to the word "and," in line 37.—(Mr. Pell.)
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHcould not accept the Amendment. The sub-section which gave to the county authority, power to make bye-laws, had been deliberately inserted, because this power had always been possessed by the turnpike trustees. It was necessary that some authority should exercise the power to determine what weights should be allowed on the roads; and if that had not been left to the local authorities, the Government would have been charged with attempting to carry out a system of centralization. The object of the bye-laws was that the local authorities should form their own opinions as to what was reasonable; but he might remark that they would not become operative until they had been sanctioned by the Local Government Board.
§ MR. DODSONconfessed that the reference made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) to the 28th clause of the Bill, under which it appeared that the byelaws were not to be of any validity until they had been submitted to and confirmed by the Local Government Board, went a long way to remove his objection to the sub-section. He, however, desired to know what was to become of the man who happened to live on the borders of two counties? He presumed that this difficulty would be adjusted.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEthought the restriction as to weight was unnecessary. Exactly the same argument was used with regard to the railways, when it was said that "if you put heavy engines on the roads you will never be able to carry them." If the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) chose to divide on this sub-section, which he (Sir Harcourt John stone) considered to press harshly on all who used the roads for the purpose of traffic, he should be happy to go with him into the Lobby.
§ MR. RYLANDShoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would take care that the road authorities had no power to make bye-laws of an absurd character.
§ Question put, "That the words 'For prohibiting the use of any waggon' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 163, Noes 50; Majority 113.—(Div. List No. 197.)
§
MR. COOPE (for Mr. RITCHIE) moved, in page 8, at end of sub-section 1, to add—
No bye-law made under this sub-section shall apply to any existing waggon or other carriage, or the wheels thereof, or to any which may he built within one year after the passing of this Act.
He considered that this exemption should be afforded to owners of waggons and carriages at the present time, and to those who had had vehicles commenced during the last 12 months.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHcould not accept the Amendment. Had his hon. Friend desired it, he should have voted in favour of the previous Amendment. He did not know whether he did or not, but he could not accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON moved, in page 9, after line 9, to insert—
- "(5.) For prohibiting the felling of any timber or trees upon, or alongside, or across any highway;
- "(6.) For prohibiting the use of any bicycle on any highway unless the rider of such bicycle shall be provided with, and shall use, a loud bell and whistle or other effectual means of giving audible notice of his approach on meeting or passing any vehicle or any person on horseback;
- "(7.) For prohibiting the breaking of stones by the roadside unless an effectual guard be used to prevent the small broken stones flying out to the danger of persons or horses being struck in passing;
- "(8.) For compelling the owners or occupiers of land adjoining land at side of highways to clean and keep open the ditches at side of road."
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he could not accept all the Amendments of the hon. Baronet.
§ MR. DODSONcould not see why timber should not be felled on the side of the highway.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he had seen roads on which it would be impossible to cut down trees, except by throwing them across the highway. But the clause, as suggested, was unnecessary, as if an unreasonable obstruction was occasioned, the person causing it was liable at common law.
§ It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.
§ The Sitting was suspended at ten minutes to Seven of the clock.
§ The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.